Maybe I was too subtle. If gun owners are threatening to shoot people over regulations, isn't that a sign that guns do kill people, and maybe we do need some type of regulations?
And we're talking about a registry, not a conspiracy to secretly make all gun-owners criminals. If you insist they're the same, that's your problem.
No, I insist, based on 20th Century history, that pretty much all confiscations in developed, and in most undeveloped countries, have been preceded by registries, and this includes multiple states in the US (where, I grant, you can move the weapon out of state).
And since they serve no good purpose, and are promoted by people who are not shy about signaling their ill will towards us, we're allowed to take the imposition of one as a solid signal what what's to come.
You say "And we're talking about a registry, not a conspiracy to secretly make all gun-owners criminals."? Prove it.
And let's be clear, in this putative Civil War 2.0, we're threatening to kill gun-grabbers wholesale and retail, with guns being one of the least effective means when compared to tactics like killing Blue cities. People kill other people, guns are inanimate objects.
I can only believe you're making a rhetorical point, but even in the abstract, threatening mass murder is beyond the pale here. Please respect the site rules and the community and don't post like this here.
Sure, if you're willing to have the participants of the site be ignorant of the consequences of the actions some of them support, sure.
But if you think our contingent threat is rhetorical, you're a fool. If you live in a fragile Blue city like San Francisco, you're doubly a fool (did they get around to closing the last power plant in SF, or was it on the peninsula? I remember Willie Brown commenting, after a major localized blackout, that maybe that wasn't such a good idea...).
And we're talking about a registry, not a conspiracy to secretly make all gun-owners criminals. If you insist they're the same, that's your problem.